Tuesday, December 16, 2008
An article Saturday in the Cadillac News, front page above the fold, stated “Many in Michigan upset about bailout collapse.” The article quoted UAW president Ron Gettlefnger and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Both had nasty words to say about U.S. Senate Republicans in particular. Several local residents added responsible remarks to the commentary; some in favor, some not.
Me? I’d merely suggest that our lawmakers, especially the U.S. House and Senate Democrats who are heavily influenced by a major “special interest,” namely the UAW that represents most auto-workers in our region, to reread the 14th amendment of our U.S. Constitution; the part guaranteeing equal protection for all.
I’m not a constitutional scholar by any means but many smarter people than me have responded to these bailouts, especially retired Judge Andrew Napolitano, as follows: "Bailouts violate the Equal Protection doctrine because the Congress can’t fairly pick and choose who to bail out and who to let expire; they violate the General Welfare Clause because they benefit only a small group and not the general public; they violate the Due Process Clause because they interfere with contracts already entered into; and they turn the public treasury into a public trough. Worse still, Congress lacks the power to let someone else decide how to spend the peoples’ money. In effect, the Congress delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury some of the power the Constitution has delegated to the Congress: The power to decide when, how, for whose benefit, and in what amounts taxpayer dollars should be spent.”
The key wording to me is that Congress lacks the power to delegate someone else to spend the public’s money. They seem to forget that it’s NOT the government’s money; it’s ours!
Additionally, they are in effect shredding the law of the land; our Constitution. I find that deplorable.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
I'm a native of Michigan, retired on a shoestring and now live "Up North" in Cadillac. Ten years ago while living in Colorado I vacationed in Michigan for a short time. One evening after shopping at the new Wal-Mart in Alma and walking back to my car, I noticed that EVERY automobile parked in the row with my Chevy rental car happened to be American made. Curious, I drove around the entire lot and didn't see a single foreign nameplate in the place. 'Remarkable,' I thought to myself. My old Michigan friends and neighbors are really supporting our home-grown auto industry. Now it's 2008, what a difference 10 years makes, hmm?
In my lifetime, I have bought and owned (even sold) nothing but American made cars, the majority of them being Chrysler products. I wonder how many of the folks clamoring for an additional $25-billion for the Detroit auto industry can say the same thing?
It was reported last week that the average American made auto hourly costs are more than $70.00, compared with the average foreign name plate, even those built down south, are around $40.00. Quite a difference. Union vs. non-union? Corporate management?
Several years ago, maybe three, I read on line where a UAW member mowing grass at a Saginaw MI factory was earning more than $70.00 hourly including his benefits. He must have been one highly talented individual to deserve that kind of money.
I spent most of a lifetime working in construction. With my God-given talent I can build a house, or most anything else, from the ground up with the help of a few grunts for muscle. During my career as an hourly worker, I never earned more than $32.50 per hour, with no benefits, and I had to invest more than $8,000 in tools in order to do that. Maybe I should have invested in a lawnmower instead.
I'm not complaining, it was my choice, just as it was the automakers choice to cave in to organized labor and be tied up in massive labor and benefit contracts that now have come home to roost.
The taxpayers have already made a $25-billion loan to the auto industry for future retooling in hopes of manufacturing a “green” automobile one day, now we are asked to do it again. My question is simple: where does that kind of money come from? Printing presses? And how much of it will be going to bail out the UAW? And the pensioners that are NOT working but are ENTITLED to fat retirement checks and health benefits according to their previous contracts with the automakers?
As you may know, when Uncle Sam (federal government) gets involved in anything, many times the situation deteriorates and gets worse. I don't want and we don't need Senator Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or even president-elect Barack Obama micro-managing the designing and manufacturing of our cars.
I say let the Detroit auto industry do what most any of us that don't qualify for massive government loans would be forced to do: file for bankruptcy, restructure, and start anew. Learn to operate their company's in a logical, mature, business like manner for a change. They could look at the successful American auto industry in the southern states and maybe follow their lead?
Will it ever happen? Who really knows?
The Liberal Democrat politicians choose to use the expression "auto industry" when speaking of Detroit's "Big 3," including our next president, Mr. Obama. It's intentionally misleading. The American auto industry outside of Detroit and Michigan in particular is thriving; building new autos with foreign nameplates using high quality American labor (non-union of course.) They are a major part of the "auto industry" and don't need or want a bailout.
This latest $25-billion fiasco that Obama, Majority Leader Reid, and House Speaker Pelosi & Company want stuffed down the taxpayers throats is nothing but a UAW labor union bailout, and guess what? The AP recently reported that UAW president Ron Gettlefinger says workers will not make any more concessions, and that getting the automakers back on their feet means figuring out a way to turn the economy around. (No kidding. What an amazing grasp of the obvious.) So, in essence, screw the taxpayers and the country; we got ours and we ain't gonna' budge.
Having lived in Michigan most of my life, it's my opinion that that type of attitude is what put us, and the auto industry, in the shape its in today.
Just for the hell of it, did you know that GM has more non-working retired former employees receiving benefits and health care coverage today than it has actual auto builders in the factories? And GM will run out of money soon and won't be able to keep their promises agreed to in the 2007 contract agreements with the UAW. Talk about corporate mis-management coupled with labor greed.
On top of that, with all of the multiple billions of dollars the elected representatives in D.C. are doling out today, this country is in hock more than $36-TRILLION in 'future unfunded mandates'? (Future Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid promises/commitments made to our retirees and financially disadvantaged.) Or is that $36-Trillion stored away in some secret "lock box?" LOL!
$36-TRILLION is more than the United States is worth if every bit of our combined assets, private and federal, were liquidated, and yet the politicians still get starry-eyed with their power to incessantly spend the taxpayers money. It has to end one day. Will it?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
I'm not an expert on the economy by any means , and by the looks of what's happening today in the markets here and abroad, it appears that no one fits that description.
However, on November 1, three days before the presidential election, NEWS Corporation chairman Ruppert Murdoch was quoted in Australian.news.com saying Barack Obama 'could worsen crisis.'
Since the election, the market has lost 14% of it's value. That on top of what it lost in the few weeks before the election when the $700-billion (70% of a trillion, or about 26% of our 2008 federal budget of $2.6-trillion.) bailout legislation passed by Congress.
Being retired and living on a shoestring, I'm not an investor, but if I were, I'd be converting any investment holdings to cash in a heartbeat.
Looking over the ''new hires'' that pres-elect Obama has in the fold thus far, it appears to be "Clinton II", and we all should remember what was happening to the market at the end of Clinton's tenure; it wasn't pretty then. Why should it be different today or tomorrow with mqny of the same folks getting ready to run the show again?
With Obama's constant pushing for another ''stimulus'' package, when the first one didn't work, and his penchant for ''saving" the Detroit auto industry' (read: the UAW pensioners etal) along with his seeming eagerness to spend tax money that doesn't exist, save for the printing presses, it's obvious to me why the market is skittish, saying the least. We saw it coming near the end of the campaign. As candidate Obama's stock (polls) began to rise, the market dropped. With the exception of a couple of recent spikes, it really hasn't stopped.
Quoting Murdoch again, "To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians. You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can't stop it."
Noted economist Lawrence Kudlow wrote recently:
In a few weeks Barack Obama will inherit the mantle of the capitalist system. What will he do with this responsibility? That’s the question being asked everywhere.
Since the election, and up until President Bush’s important G-20 speech, stock markets sold off nearly 15 percent. Investors want to know if economic rewards will be encouraged or penalized. Will trade remain open and free? Will we maintain competitive businesses that can compete worldwide? Or will we resort to the protection of ailing or failed businesses?Will the U.S. lurch toward the semi-socialism of Old Europe? Or will we stay with free-market capitalism? Will we expand the nanny-state economy? Or will we keep the door wide open to entrepreneurial spirit and gales of creative destruction?
Investors want to know which way President-elect Obama is going to go. Might he reach back to the Democratic pro-growth supply-side policies of John F. Kennedy’s tax cuts, free trade, and strong dollar? Will he opt for Bill Clinton’s free-trade and strong-dollar policies, or even his capital-gains tax cut? Or will he fall back to the hopeless government tinkering of Jimmy Carter or the welfare-statism of Lyndon Johnson?
I’m keeping an open mind on Mr. Obama during this post-election honeymoon period. After all, he stole the tax-cut issue from Sen. McCain during the election. And surely he knows the conservative red states that joined his campaign for change didn’t vote for a leftward lurch to socialism lite.
Mr. Obama has a huge opportunity and an outsized responsibility to mend and revive the economy. It may be too much to ask, but perhaps he will give President Bush’s marvelous speech a close read. There is much wisdom there. And there is no iron-clad reason why a Democrat can’t adopt the economic-growth model that has worked so well and so long for this country.
— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
Friday, November 7, 2008
A long time Internet friend of mine, Mr. Alan Sherman, attorney at law and professional "world traveler extroardinaire" recently added my name to a political emailing list of his; a broad, informed list containing many of his friends and acquaintances from across the planet.
One of his friends in particular struck my fancy with his sensible postings and it's my pleasure to share part of a recent exchange we had prior to the election, or immediately afterward, one... allow me to introduce K. Murphy:
Jaq posted in part: What JFBurk (another long time Internet friend) posted earlier is close to my opinion too. GWB initially offered to bring a "new tone" to Washington, DC and look what it got him; the most maligned president since Abraham Lincoln (and look where Lincoln's place in American history is today).
K. Murphy's RESPONSE: Actually, by the end of Lincoln's presidency he was greatly loved and respected. Warren Harding, Ulysses S. Grant (who I greatly respect even though I am a southerner), Calvin Coolidge and Jimmy Carter were maligned at the end of their presidencies and history (with the possible exception of Grant) has not treated them well.
I truly hope that GWB winds up with a high place in our presidential list but I solely doubt it. Bush did not really realize he was the President until 9/11. Attorney General John Ashcroft created a new category called a "person of interest." This is McCarthyism at its worst. No more is a person innocent until proven guilty. He (Bush) had (Secretary of Defense) Rummy, a man who did not listen to his generals and as a result did not put enough units into Iraq (putting aside whether we should be there or not-- if we go in we should at least try to win.) It took four years before we had a strategy that seems to be working. Bush abdicated his responsibilities and let the neocons take over. Shame on him.
From 9/11 on the Dems gave him everything he wanted. Look at the financial cost of the war and yet we do not have Bin Laden, even when we had the chances. I do not like Michael Moore but maybe there is truth to the comments about Bush's relationship with Bin Laden's family. Further, we are no safer in the world than before.
Finally, in 2006 the Dems started to have some backbone and said, "enough is enough!" Can they be effective leaders? Only time will tell but I do not think they can do any worse than what we have had. It is convenient to blame the current financial crisis on Clinton and Greenspan-- they deserve a share of the blame no doubt but Bush has been in charge of the nation and the economy since 2001. I spent five years in the USMC and as an officer when I took command, everything related to that command was my responsibility even if the problem predated my command. Shouldn't it be the same for Bush? It does not seem so. He has been in charge of the economy for almost eight years. He has plenty of time to correct problems. (By the way, Truman said the buck stopped here- He understood command, responsibility and accepted it.) He (Bush) did not do it (correct the problems) and the financial crisis fell on his and McCain's head like a ton of bricks.
The fact is the Republican party has been controlled by the neocons and the Christian Taliban. It is time that true conservatives take back their party and quit complaining about the Democrats, Clinton, and Obama. When they do, I will probably vote with them. While I like McCain as a person he was not the right choice. He further aggravated the problem by choosing someone that made the Christian Taliban happy but not the rest of the country. About 56 million people felt it was time for a change. I agree with them.
~ ~ ~
Jaq responds: Well said, K. Murphy, I find little fault in much of what you wrote and don't chose to nit-pick. (However, one could write pages on the obstacles the Dems placed in GWB's way during the first six years bewfore they took over in 2006. Non-stop obstructionism IMO.)
Post Election, GWB got off to a bad start, at least that's my recollection. First, the "dangling chad" fiasco in Florida that allowed Al Gore to attempt to cherry pick Dem strongholds for recounts that led to the USSC telling the FSSC to go pack sand.
Then Bush got off to a very slow start after his inauguration because of that hassle, IMO at least. It took him forever to get his administration approved and in place, to the point of keeping some Clinton appointees; Tenet, for one. Questionable to say the least. At the same time, we had two Senate majority leaders, Trent Lott & Tom Daschle, who "shared" that post on and off for a while. Talk about gridlock.
In May of 2001, Vermont's Republican Senator Jim Jeffords decided to jump ship switching parties allowing Dashle to run the Senate for the next 19 months. Adding to that mess, the country was coming out of a Clinton tenured recession brought about by the bursting of the tech bubble. Blue collar friends of mine in the construction industry were losing big bucks fast from there 401s and weren't too happy about it. Of course, the media took the bait and began beating up Bush, claiming adnauseum that the economy was "in the tank." It never stopped. All that prior to 9/11.
Barring another one of those national tragedies, president-elect Obama will have it better, although if Rahm Emmanuel decides to be Chief of Staff, we might forget about "coming together." He is more partisan than Karl Rove ever thought of being, even his friends say so.
I totally agree with your assesment of how the Iraq incursion could have been handled better. (Especially in the later stages following the fall of Baghdad and Saddam's capture.) Too many bureaucratic egos imbedded at the Department of State, Defense, CIA and in our military at first... (Many left-overs from the previous Clinton Administration). We were basically at "war" with ourselves for several years. Sadly, we took Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi at his word at first, an Iraqi politician who hadn't been in country since 1958? Leader? Jeesh!
I also am of the opinion that the entire eight years of Bill Clinton's tenure were an unbelievable waste of a great talent (and mistakes as well). Too bad ol' Bill didn't govern as he could have.
My biggest disappointment is the way the national media have during the last decade unashamedly and outwardly fallen into bed with the elitist liberals. Instead of reporting facts, as is their journalistic mission, they are seeming to emulate Woodard and Bernstein, or trying to be opinion columists. Pretty shabby IMO. The same goes for the broadcast media, and we can thank CBS's Walter Cronkite (remember Tet?) for that. Where are the new Edward R. Morrows?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
First, my 2-cents worth of predicting an upset victory for Senator John McCain went down the toilet like many others dreams on Election night.
Second, sincere congratulations are in order to president-elect Barack Obama, I truly wish him luck.
A close friend from California, knowing that I was not voting for Barack Obama emailed me Wednesday, “How are you dealing with it?”
I replied that I had dealt with it on Election night while watching the TV screen and acknowledging that in my heart I knew McCain was really a loser, and with that, I turned off the TV and enjoyed a decent nights rest.
Two things came to mind in answering my friend: McCain picked a future winner with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, regardless of whatever one will hear from the McCain camp about her inexperience (a lot of it possibly coming from some Romney-ites who worked for McCain after the primaries. Are they worried about 2012 already?)
Second, McCain really exonerated former Senator Robert Dole (as I posted earleir) in running the worst presidential campaign in Republican Party history. However, that's what the media expected; what they wanted, and in my opinion, this is the first time the media picked both candidates and controlled who the next president would be.
Now, I actually feel sorry for president-elect Obama. I don't think he's experienced enough for the office and it will be sad watching him attempt to grow into it.
Picking ex-Clinton White House operative Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff (if he does) would show me that Obama, may NOT be about “Change” at all. Emmanuel is a rabid, hardheaded, North Chicago partisan who is not interested in "crossing the aisle" to serve the best interests of the country. He is more about the party. Emmanuel said in a recent interview, “Republicans can go fuck themselves”.
Unless Emmanuel has suddenly changed his stripes, he intends to run the Republican Party out of business. That’s hardly “reaching across the aisle.” Is this the “Change That We Can Believe In? “ I pray not.
Monday, November 3, 2008
My 2-cents… when all the dust has settled on election 2008, McCain-Palin will be the winners. That’s my opinion; and if I’m wrong, it won't be the first time.
As political analyst Dick Morris has said repeatedly, IF Senator Obama’s poll numbers are at 49% or lower, (giving Ralph Nader 1or 2%) and Senator McCain can stay within 2-3% points, there are enough “undecided” out there to boost McCain past him. Then take into account those whom the pollsters called but didn’t participate in the polls, the non-participants that I believe are mostly conservative. You know those bitter clingers who tend to take refuge in their church and their guns and who have probably rolled the words "President Obama" around in their mouths and had it feel something akin to being third world.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a strong victory for the underdog, and with enough separation to not allow the Dems to cry “voter suppression!” Especially if we have a repeat of Gore-Lieberman 2000 with Obama receiving more popular votes (based on massive black voter turnouts in the states that are Blue already), while McCain wins the Electoral College votes.
However it turns out, we’ll finally be rid of the incessant political ads now running on our TV day and night. We have one dumpy little state representative here in northern lower Michigan that is running the dumbest TV ad I’ve ever seen. His “thing” is that he can’t be “bought” by the rich and powerful forces that are backing his opponent and he needs our help (our vote I guess) to “fight them.”
Very intriguing. Very silly… in northern Michigan I can't imagine “rich and powerful forces” that are interested in one small district mostly covered by forests with many dirt roads and a small village here and there. This is NOT the south side of Chicago by any means.
Anyway, VOTE tomorrow, unless your have already.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Of late, there has been much said and discussed regarding “spreading the wealth around a little bit”, which for the uninformed is simply allowing the government or someone else to take a portion of your income or savings and give it to someone else. Don’t confuse this with charity where one gives to the disadvantaged of their own volition, free will.
Thomas Jefferson, patriot, one of the nation's original Founders, best known as the author of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States, wrote in a letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
For decades, this has been the foundation of our free enterprise system. One of the presidential candidates doesn’t seem to accept that premise. If you agree with that premise, you’ll know whom to vote on Tuesday November 4.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Many times words left unspoken convey more meaning than an ear-splitting shout. That appears to be the case with the Obama Campaign’s lack of response regarding the Sarah Palin effigy hanging by a noose from the gable of a West Hollywood CA residence. Quoting FOX NEWS.com, “The owner of a home that has a mannequin dressed like the Republican vice presidential candidate and hanging by a rope says it's just a "scary" Halloween decoration.”
Yes, and right above it mounted atop a wide chimney is a likeness of Senator John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, shrouded in flames. More Halloween fun I presume?
What concerns me is the utter silence emanating from the Obama camp, especially with the likeness of Governor Sarah Palin hanging by a rope. Politics being what it is today, what would the media’s response be if a likeness of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama were seen hanging from a rope? I’m guessing there would be near riots in the streets accompanied by the hue and cry of racism along with a demand for John McCain to immediately repudiate the act. To date, no such outcry has been heard from the media demanding Obama repudiate the sexist Palin effigy. Is this the behavior we should expect during the next four years if Obama is elected president?
The national media has obviouly been soft on the Obama Campaign from the beginning, so much so as to be labeled “in their pocket.” Wonderful. When the honest media rufflles the feathers of the Obama camp, they are immediately chastised, placed in an unfavorable category and not allowed to contact or interview them further, as is the case in Orlando Florida now where in an interview, a local TV station’s reporter asked several uncomfortable questions of Joe Biden. Must we now condone selective free speech?
Following WW II and during the Cold War, the former USSR had it's Tass and Pravda, their "official" news sources. What name will our biased media pick for themselves later in time?
(Source: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/effigy-palin-hanging-noose-halloween-fun-says-owner/ )
Monday, October 27, 2008
Earlier, a friend of mine applauded socialism on our local newspaper's op-ed page, listing our Social Security system, Medicare and the Post Office as fine examples. I agree to a point; believing that most anything administered in moderation is acceptable. But for a presidential candidate to openly campaign on “spreading the wealth around,” or in plain terms to take a portion of your hard earned money or savings and hand it over to someone else is nothing but socialism at its worst. To me, that is unacceptable.
Presidential candidate Obama told his Senate colleagues on March 7, 2007: “Let’s stop sending mixed messages. Let’s work together and set immigration fees at a level that are fair and consistent with our commitment to being an open, democratic, and egalitarian society.”
Quoting Canadian journalist Marinka Peschmann, “Egalitarianism is defined as ‘a social and political philosophy asserting the equality of all men, especially in their access to the rights and privileges of their society.’ It’s a social ‘philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.’ The objective of egalitarianism advocacy is socialism.
“Socialism is ‘a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.’ It’s founded on two tenets: Thomas Jefferson’s, ‘All men are created equal,’ in the Declaration of Independence and Karl Marx’s ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’
”History proves that socialists offer few practical points about how these two principles can be reconciled where everyone’s quality of life is harmoniously lifted up instead of knocked down, (snip) capitalism may be the ‘uneven distribution of wealth,’ but ‘socialism’ is ‘the even distribution of poverty.’
I pray we won’t wake up one day and discover we’ve quietly become a socialistic welfare state, beginning with punishing of the successful.
Marinka Peschmann quotes source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5839
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Biden gets asked tough questions by Orlando reporter
Saturday, October 25, 2008 -
Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .
During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.
"Are you joking?," Biden asked.
West replied, "No."
Click here to watch the interview.
Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.
"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.
The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.
Such arrogance, and that on top of the "Politics of Personal Destruction" the Obama-Biden camp along with their media friends used on an ordinary citizen, Samuel J. "Joe the plumber" Wurzelbacher, aka not to mention the ongoing scurrilous attacks almost daily on Republican vice-presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin.
The Obama folks seem to be following old WWII Gestopo and Cold War KGB tactics; silence or attack the critics, AND they haven't taken office yet. The next four years should be interesting.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
National columnist Michael Barone wrote an interesting Internet article on presidential polls and their accuracy where he said in part, “…this year especially, many who ask if we can trust the polls are usually concerned about something else: Can we trust the poll when one of the presidential candidates is black?
“It is commonly said that the polls in the 1982 California and the 1989 Virginia gubernatorial races overstated the margin for the black Democrats who were running -- Tom Bradley and Douglas Wilder. The theory to account for this is that some poll respondents in each case were unwilling to say they were voting for the white Republican.
So, if I’m understanding Mr. Barone accurately, many white folks when polled may respond in favor of a black candidate, if there is one. In this case that would be Senator Obama. Inside the voting booth they may vote their conscience, perhaps NOT voting for Senator Obama. Afterward, if polled while exiting, they may state that they favored Obama, essentially skewing the pollsters results.
Going one step farther, IF Obama then loses to Senator McCain, all we’ll hear from the left for months on end is, ‘voter fraud; voter suppression; another stolen election!’ Add to this, we may see litigation in many of the states where the vote difference was close; litigation in hopes of overturning the initial vote count in favor of the loser. We watched this agonizing spectacle in 2000 when vice-president Gore attempted to use the Florida State Supreme Court to “cherry pick” several select counties for a partial recount in order to circumvent George W. Bush’s eventual small lead. Unfortunately, due to the months of possibly innaccurate political polling statistics, what took place in Florida in 2000 may look like a walk-in-the-park in 2008.
For Michael Barone's complete article, go to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463210033356561.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
(Note: Remember a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977? CRA prohibited financial institutions from using their previous "Red Line" qualifying process that identified questionable real estate neighborhoods and forced them to make questionable loans to questionable applicants. Read: bad or risky loans. All of this with the approval of the Democrat led Congress; then and now.)
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As reputable journalist Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
Monday, October 20, 2008
How quickly the balance on the political stage shifts… last week it was “Senator Government” aka Senator Barack Obama inadvertently saying he wanted to “…just spread the wealth around.” A very Marxist/Socialist un-American philosophy to take from the wealthy and give to the disadvantaged.
On Monday, “Senator Gaffe” aka Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s vice-presidential choice spoke, unaware there were media types present, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" Biden said to a roomful of donors.
He continued, "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said," Biden continued. "Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
That “guy” Senator Biden referred to is none other than Senator Barack Obama, perhaps the next president of the United States. Unless the voters take a good look at the 'brilliant 47-year old senator' who Joe Biden himself criticized earlier during the Democratic primaries saying Obama was unprepared to become the chief executive, adding that the Oval Office is not a place for on-the-job training.
Afterward, the McCain camp released this statement: “There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing -- that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.”
Obviously, the McCain camp is biased, but really, is Obama ready to be the next president? That’s for the voters to decide. While Biden’s prediction is scary, would he say the same if McCain were elected?
Friday, October 17, 2008
So Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama wants to “redistribute the wealth.” At least that's what he let slip last week while chatting with Joe Wurzelbacher, the plumber. Unfortunately the live TV cameras recorded his very words. How very arrogant of him; how very Socialist of him… and all of my life I thought we lived in a Free Enterprise society, where you were taxed fairly on what you earned and were encouraged to prosper and attain the American Dream.
Apparently Obama has a different slant on what constitutes the American Dream. Can it be that the encroaching liberal “entitlement attitude” has jaded his thinking? That no one should enjoy an abundance of success, which in most cases means accumulating wealth? That in the best class warfare scenario its “unfair” to succeed while others have not?
This could be the biggest gaffe in Obama’s short political career. It’s my opinion that most Americans would not favor any socialist plan to “redistribute their wealth.” Especially at the expense of being taxed at a greater rate. Believe what you will, at some point the existing Bush tax cuts will expire soon and guess what? The Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi led Democrats in Washington, D.C. are perfectly willing to let them expire allowing the tax rates to return to the higher levels of the Clinton years. Yet, they refuse to call that a tax increase. What would you call it? Change?
If you as voters are willing to elect an individual whose philosophy is to take from the rich and give to the poor as Obama’s proposing in his so-called middle class tax cut plan where of the 95% whose taxes will be lowered includes 30-40% who do NOT pay any tax at all , will receive a “welfare” check labeled a "tax credit" from Uncle Sam (taxpayer’s dollars) then he’s your man.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
(I apologize for the long absence. Last weekend my PC contracted a host of virus's and we just got it up-and-running today. Be careful what you open, boys and girls!)
One positive thing that John McCain can claim, regardless of the out come of the upcoming election; he exonerated former Senator Robert Dole who previously ran the most inept campaign in Republican Party history.
John “Maverick” McCain is not one of my favorites as I posted here months ago, but at least he is a known quantity as opposed to his Democrat opponent, Senator Barack Obama.
Barack Obama is a “new kid on the block” politically, finishing his fourth year in the U.S. Senate where he spent less than 150 actual days on the job, the balance of the time running for our highest office. Before that, he was an Illinois State Senator. Cool, calm and collected, he reads well from a teleprompter in front of large audiences. As one critic remarked, in that capacity he does as good a job as the average television news anchor. And with this vast accumulation of qualifications, he could become our next president?
His accomplishments are few, his record is sparse. He did author two autobiographies, apparently to get it right as to who he is. But, who is he? To many of us he’s a total unknown quantity, but with the incredible capability to attract huge amounts of campaign cash in small quantities, some from questionable Internet subscribers with no vowels in their names or addresses.
To many of his followers and supporters he is akin to being Messianic, one who at the campaign’s beginning advocated ‘Change,’ but nearing the end he comes off as just another liberal tax and spend politician; ask “Joe the Plumber.” A young politician with questionable past associates, who if connected to John McCain would have driven him from the race early on.
Obviously, the power of the biased media is in full bloom today; it successfully handpicked McCain, the weakest of the Republican field, and they certainly picked Barack Obama. Trick ‘em, vote for McCain.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Causality; Coincidence; Casualty… three words that in most cases have no connection. Unless they do.
Anymore I follow the stock market only to the point of determining if the Dow-Jones average went up today or dropped. I’m not an investor any more. My history of investing is similar to my history as a poker player; I’m not very good at either. You can’t get ahead by breaking even so I avoid both the market and the card game.
I do watch political trends as many in the market do and I’m seeing one now. That’s where Causality may be in play. Since Treasury Secretary Paulson and President Bush proclaimed that we needed a $700-billion bail out of Wall Street, presidential candidate Obama’s poll ratings have been creeping ever higher. Conversely, the stock market has not. We’ve seen record losses almost on a daily basis. Is it a Coincidence or is there more to it? The dreaded cause and effect factor?
Do the market investors see in Obama something that is worrisome? Frankly, I do, based on both he and his running mate’s avoidance in answering a simple question: which of your proposed spending programs would you drop or cut? Both Obama and Biden have successfully avoided naming any, instead they ramble on about the importance of the programs they will keep, most of them requiring huge increases in spending, spending tax dollars that aren’t there. Give Senator McCain some credit-- at least twice now he has said he would enact a spending freeze except for defense and veterans affairs.
Casualties, the third word I listed, might come into play with an Obama presidency. Though Obama would seek to build a new economy from the “bottom up,” there’s no way that unfortunate economic times will not affect those at the bottom.
Monday, October 6, 2008
This is an email forwarded to me by my old friend and supervisor, Cal, apparently emailed to him and signed by someone name Stan. I have no way to prove or disprove it's contents.
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago, I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives me crazy. However, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.
About six months ago, I started thinking, "Where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were many student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.
During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip?
Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back, he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.
After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York. By "chance”, he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association".
About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. However, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race.
In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans, where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. Now, we have Obama running for President.
Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? On the other hand, am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things". Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from?
The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East? And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he made a mistake". Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - visit Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times
Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times –September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this? A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within!”
P.S. I checked most of this info out myself and it is factual!!!
As I said at the beginning, I received this email a week ago from an old friend and former supervisor (when I was a lad in the Central Division Consumers Power Company electrical engineering department...) it was signed by Stan. My former supervisor's name is NOT Stan so I'm certain he didn't generate it, he merely passed it along.
The questions posed by it's author are valid; we don't know jack-shit about Obama (or his campaign contributions that are under some scrutiny now by the FEC) other than as John McCain finally admitted, Obama came out of nowhere and hasn't done much of anything since except run for the highest office in the land. That act of running, in Obama’s own words, is qualification enough that he has the basic executive experience to run the country. Oh, really? I use 'run' loosely as most presidents are flummoxed by a contrary Congress and don't accomplish a fraction of what they set out to do, ergo their campaign promises are a joke.
Back to experience, I've watched TVs "Law & Order" series from its outset, many more years than Obama has been in the U.S. Senate... I suppose that qualifies me run for the office of District Attorney here in beautiful Wexford County. Damn, it's too late to get on this election's ballot so I'd better get busy writing a couple of autobiographies in order to settle in on exactly who I am and what I might be about.
Then there is this little unresolved problem of qualifications… in order to serve as president of the United States, one must be born in the United States or one of it’s protectorates, as explained here, to wit:
Qualifications for the Office of President
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
So our liberal friends will continue to argue about what the definition of the word “is" is… and they will pathetically argue as to what the Founding Fathers meant by “natural born.” Once such remark, “Duh, does that mean born without use of an anesthetic pain-killer, man?”
In a case now pending, Barack Obama and his legal counsel, instead of producing a valid birth certificate, chose instead to fend off a pending legal action taken in Pennsylvania by a Phillip J. Berg, attorney-at-law, who is petitioning the presiding court to force Obama to produce such a document, if there is such a thing.
Instead, this is the latest response:
Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 09/24/08)
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion-to-Dismiss on the last day, to file a response, for the obvious purpose of delaying Court action in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by delaying the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama was “natural born.”
So many questions, so little time. Later... take care out there.
Mike Isikopff, veteran Newsweek columnist says in his latest column, “The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported.
For the complete article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403
As most of you are aware, Newsweek is NOT a flaming right-wing publication, so when they become alarmed that all is not on the up-and-up in Obamaland, maybe it’s time for the voters to take note.
In the past couple of weeks I have read a couple of other articles seriously questioning Obama’s campaign sources. $458-million or so is a lot of cash in which to keep an accurate accounting. His staff claims that about half of it came from small contributions of less than $200 each from hundreds of thousands of contributors. They go on to claim that that’s proof of his vast popularity. But some of it has come from foreign sources including the Hamas terrorist controlled Gaza Strip bordering Israel, and that folks is illegal. One article I read says that about $200-million of the funds raised are in question. A few thousand dollars has been returned, much, much more has not. Does the average voter care? I’d say the average voter isn’t even aware.
Quoting from Isikopff's article, "Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.
Will the Republican National Committee, who are now suing for disclosure and for alleged violation of campaign contribution laws, or the Federal Election Committee have time to get the real facts before the election? You’d have to be delirious to believe that will happen. Campaign contribution laws and regulations are broken all the time but no one pays the price until it’s too late, usually after the offending party is happily ensconced in office and out of harms way. Pitiful.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
(Another “Letter to the Editor” which was published on Tuesday, September 30, 2008)
Don’t Blame Republicans for Bailout’s Failure, or its Cause!
A bit more than 30 minutes into a 15-minute vote Monday in the U.S. House of Representatives it became apparent that nearly 100 Democrats voting in tandem with more than 130 Republicans had heard the loud voices of their constituents and voted against a $700-billion taxpayer funded bailout of financial institutions that previously made questionable mortgage loans to questionable applicants, all in the guise of “affordable housing.”
Following the vote, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, found the TV cameras and proceeded to blame failure of the legislation on the House Republicans, conveniently forgetting that her Democrats have a majority of the votes in the House and could have easily passed it without any Republican votes. What she also forgot were basic social graces; if you seek bipartisanship don’t poison a session prior to an important vote with a starkly partisan speech, hammering your opponents and then expect their cooperation.
As far as blame for this entire financial mess, it’s my opinion that its roots go back to 1977 when Democrat President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) into law. CRA prohibited lending institutions from “redlining” or discriminating against neighborhoods, in particular, high financial risk neighborhoods.
With those restrictions removed, Pandora’s box was opened to allow financial institutions to make questionable real estate loans, which coincidentally seems to be the big economic problem today.
Many institutions that refused to abide by CRA were threatened with federal lawsuit if they didn’t comply and make the questionable loans. Only in Socialist America, I guess?
So where does the real blame fall? On the 1977 Congress that enacted the CRA legislation? Certainly not on today’s Congress… this Democrat controlled Congress is seemingly “without sin.” Ask any of them.
Today in this era of overblown partisan bickering, sitting president George W. Bush and the Republicans are labeled the fall guys. Following him, it’s presidential contender Senator John McCain, R-AZ. Someone please tell me how anyone in their right mind can agree with that premise, especially when it was Senator McCain in 2005 who warned the country of the impending crisis featuring FannieMae and FreddieMac and was ridiculed by his Democrat Senate associates.?
Go online and find anything that Democrats Senator Christopher Dodd or Representative Barney Frank said in warning of their collapse. No, all you will find are positive statements about how strong the two agencies are. It’s pretty damning when you actually read their words.
For further evidence, please check out this link to a video filmed in the U.S. House, a C-Span filmed video of Democrat Representatives covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our current Economic Crisis…
Unless you are willing to disbelieve what your eyes and ears tell you.
Trickle Up Economy? I snicker just thinking about it, sorry... I digress.
Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama’s web site states:
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama and Biden will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.
The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
“Up to” are key words boys and girls, what if it’s only $188 depending on your previous year’s income. And IF all 150 million workers do receive $500 each in federal welfare, aka “tax relief,” where is Obama going to find the money now with the recent brouhaha in D.C. and the huge $700-billion Wall Street bailout? Will he and Joe Biden insist on increasing the federal deficit even more by borrowing the non-existent dollars? Certainly they aren’t willing to CUT any of the excessive spending they have espoused in their campaign promises. Or to lower their expectations of what grand social advances they can achieve, at least based on their non-responses in the last two debates when asked a simple question; in these questionable economic times what of your proposed programs do you intend to eliminate or cut? (I didn't hear an answer.)
As far as “Growing the Economy From the Bottom Up” as they propose, are most of you like me? In my lifetime, every job I ever held was a result of being hired by a businessman or his personnel manager. I never had a “man on the street” pay my wages. Am I the exception?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Yeah, remember when you smoked a lot of those nasty old cigarettes and discovered that you'd suddenly runout? Next move; you "borrowed" one from a buddy. OP is an acronym for "Other Peoples."
In this case I borrowed the title to this blog from a Bob Seger mid-70s album .
The article below is from:
It's a few weeks old: BLDEBO. (Before Latest Disasterous Economic Bail out). It goes like this:
“The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800-billion and tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it.“
Just to make it clearer, Kudlow goes on: "It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth..."
$800-billion... that's a staggering figure!
Just to put it in perspective, the United States government collected approximately $2.6-trillion in revenues in 2007. $800-billion is 30% of that figure! $800-billion would represent the GREATEST EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT in the history of the United States!
To put it in further perspective, $800-billion is about $6.800.00 per household or $2,700.00 for every man, woman and child in the United States!
And YOU get to pay for it! Kudlow lists just a few of Obama's goals:
- $150-billion on a green-energy plan.
- An infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60-billion.
- An expansion of health insurance by roughly $65 billion. Steve Moore, writing for The Wall Street Journal did the math. The Weekly Standard quotes him as saying that Obama's tax proposals will add up to a “39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 2% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax."
But What About Obama's Middle Class Tax Cut? Isn't He Just Going To Take From The Rich? Make no mistake, Barack Hussein Obama WILL raise your taxes! He won't just raise taxes on the "rich." He'll raise YOUR TAXES! He'll raise your children's taxes. He'll raise your grandchildren's taxes!
To paraphrase former-President Ronald Reagan, “If it moves, he WILL tax it!"
Let's take a real close at one of his middle-class tax relief proposals. According to Politico.com: "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an 'Emergency Economic Plan' that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded IN PART by what his presidential campaign calls 'windfall profits from Big Oil'.
Separately, Obama's plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package. Essentially Obama wants to fund something on the order of $100-billion - $200-billion dollars a year on the back of Big Oil. But we've been down this road before and history tells us what happens when we tax the "windfall profits" of oil companies. Tax revenues go DOWN to NOTHING and the domestic oil industry collapses! Internet blogger Michelle Malkin recently quoted a Congressional Research Service (CRS) assessment of the Carter-era windfall profits tax: "[T]he windfall profits tax was forecasted to raise more than $320-billion between 1980 and 1989. However, according to the CRS, the government collected only $80-billion in gross tax revenue ($146 billion in 2004 dollars). The net amount was actually less than this -- roughly $40-billion -- because the tax was deductible against corporate income."
"[T]he windfall profits tax was forecasted to raise more than $320-billion between 1980 and 1989. However, according to the CRS, the government collected only $80-billion in gross tax revenue ($146 billion in 2004 dollars). The net amount was actually less than this -- roughly $40-billion .
"CRS also found the windfall profits tax had the effect of decreasing domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent, thereby increasing American dependence on foreign oil sources by 8 percent to 16 percent. A side effect was declining, not increasing, tax collections. Figure 1 clearly shows that while the tax raised considerable revenue in the initial years following its enactment, those revenues declined to almost nothing as the domestic industry collapsed."
So, who is going to pay for President Barack Hussein Obama's grand income redistribution scheme? You can be certain of this much... that $1000.00 check will come in handy -- if it ever comes -- particularly when the price of gasoline at the pump goes up even further, the taxes collected from the oil companies drops to 'nada', and Obama searches for other sources of revenue to make up the difference!
Who Is Going To Pay For All This?
According to Obama's campaign website:
“Barack Obama is the only candidate who has a real middle class relief plan. He will provide $1,000 in a refundable tax credit to working families, create a universal mortgage interest credit for homeowners who can't benefit from a mortgage tax incentive available to wealthier Americans, and create a $4,000 college tax credit for middle class families."
"Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7-million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns."
$1,400.00 times 7-million... That's $9.8 billion. A $1,000 tax credit and a $4,000 college tuition credit... we're talking hundreds of billion of dollars!
Who is going to pay for all of this? YOU ARE! That is, if it happens at all...
Remember what happened the last time a Democrat running for president promised a middle-class tax cut? In his very first campaign ad, which aired in January of 1992, Bill Clinton stated: "I'm Bill Clinton and I believe that you deserve more than 30-second ads and vague promises. That's why I've offered a comprehensive plan to get our economy moving again, to take care of our own people, and regain our economic leadership. It starts with a tax cut for the middle class and asks the rich to pay their fair share."
Within days of taking office, Clinton reneged on that promise. On nationwide television he said he 'tried as hard as he could' but just couldn't deliver! At least he 'felt our pain'. You could see the heartfelt agony in his face over breaking that promise! And then, it only took him about TWO MONTHS to push the largest tax increase in United States history on the American people through Congress! It was one of his top priorities! And like Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama was never shy about taxes.
At the Democratic Presidential Debate at Howard University on June 28, 2007, Obama said: "And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives."
In his response to the 2008 State of the Union Address, Obama stated: "[W]e know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them."
When questioned on the issue of taxes at the Democratic Presidential Debate in Los Angeles, California on January 30, 2008, Obama proudly boasted: "I'm not bashful about it."
A middle-class tax cut? It won't happen!
If we're lucky, Barack Hussein Obama will give with one hand and take (a greater amount) with the other! 'Obama giveth and Obama taketh away' (after all, some have called him a "messiah").
That's why we call it, 'income redistribution!' Giving Your Money To The World... But Obama's income redistribution schemes don't stop at the shores of the United States! Let us not forget Barack Hussein Obama's Global Poverty Act -- a bill that lays the groundwork for -- according to some estimates -- what could amount to a $845-billion United Nations tax on the people of the United States!
And just how much is $845-billion? Vincent Gioia, writing in Right Side News, translates this incomprehensible figure into language every American understands: "This amounts to a tax of over $2,000 on each man, woman and child in the United States. The foreign aid budget now stands at $300 billion; the Act would add the additional expenditure to the already huge amount allocated to assist the world."
But wait a minute, folks! The Global Poverty Act is part of a much larger United Nations scheme. The United Nations' Millennium Development Goal -- proclaimed in 2000 -- contains plans for the additional plundering of your bank account. Among their stated goals are: · a "currency transfer tax," -- that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who, in the course of traveling or doing international business, must exchange dollars for foreign currency;
- a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources;"
- and "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies,
- fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum...
- and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."
NOW is the time to take the fight to Senator Barack Hussein Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
NOW is the time to make it clear to the American people that Obama, Pelosi and Reid stand for higher taxes and more failed socialist programs that will squeeze the wealth from middle-class Americans and that we stand for lower taxes and personal prosperity.
Demand that they push the issue NOW!
Demand that they dare Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to oppose them and, in the process, force Obama, Pelosi and Reid to show their true tax-and-spend colors to the American people!
In about 30 days we will elect the next President of the United States. That's not a lot of time and there is not a moment to lose!
My opinion piece was recently printed by the Cadillac (MI) News...
A good friend of mine, a staunch liberal, recently had a partial out-of-context remark published, credited to presidential candidate Senator John McCain regarding proposed health care deregulation that read, “… as we have done over the last decade in banking...” implying that this deregulation would give health care providers an unsupervised blank check. Not so.
Let’s clear the air. Factcheck.org, an impartial Internet fact finding group, stated that was a twisting of McCain’s words referring to presidential candidate Barack Obama’s recent ad using the same incomplete, out-of-context phrase.
Here’s the full text of Senator John McCain’s statement:
“I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field. You should be able to buy your insurance from any willing provider—the state bureaucracies are no better than national ones. Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead, and bloated executive compensation.”
As Factcheck.org also stated, “Note that McCain began by speaking of buying insurance ‘across state lines.’ His comparison with banking regulation was limited to ‘opening up the insurance market’ to ‘nationwide’ competition to ‘provide more choices’ to consumers.”
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has claimed that words have meanings. I contend if we are to use other people’s words, let’s use their entire statement in order to clarify their original intent, not to confuse and scare the voters..